Talk:Washington University in St. Louis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri.
If you attend or have attended Washington University, you can add this userbox on your userpage: {{user washington university}}, to display this on your userpage:
WU
This user attends or attended
Washington University.
This will also add you to the category: Wikipedians by alma mater: Washington University in St. Louis

Contents

[edit] Citation Question

Is the head of WUSTL really the highest-paid university head in the United States? Where did this fact come from? I can believe that fact, but it seems to me that it needs a reference. It does not state in his article that he makes more than any other head. Zeus1233 10:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

°Yeah, I agree. I feel that it should be removed until there is any substantiation of this. 128.252.107.73 07:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This information is demonostrably false. The least modicum of effort spent searching Google for "highest paid" and "university president" shows the claim to be incorrect, no matter how you twist the data. He is not the highest paid among private school OR public school presidents. The highest paid private school head is William R. Brody of Johns Hopkins University ($897,786 in university compensation), and according to the New York Times, "[a]t least five other university presidents earned more than $800,000." The same article at the Times notes that "Mark A. Emmert of the University of Washington is the highest-paid public university president, earning $762,000 this academic year. Carl V. Patton of Georgia State, who receives $722,350, and Mary Sue Coleman of the University of Michigan, who receives $677,500, rank second and third." So there's a list of 9 poeple who clearly make more than the Chancellor of Wash U. I changed the article to say, "among the highest paid," in the spirit of collaboration and leaving the information as intact as possible, but I think that even this concession is misleading and overstates the chancellor's compensation package. I would guess that Wash U's head is not even in the top 15. Bjsiders 20:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Begin Category for WU??

It might be time to start a category for WU (as has been done with Saint Louis University). Certainly the growing list of well-known alumni could be farmed out to become its own article in a new WU category, as it's now getting kind of unwieldy for the WU main article. People associated with the university (such as Mark S. Wrighton) could also be placed in this cat. Comments? Ropcat 20:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Never mind this post. I've already gone ahead and done these two tasks. (Setting up WU cat, and moving famous grads to own article.) Ropcat 22:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of US News rankings

On 04 April, User 216.201.96.68 removed the sentence on the University's rankings in U.S. News and World Report, explaining that s/he "removed irrelevant info (this is not a top university). it appears that including this information was a non-neutral attempt to elevate this school's low reputation." I have restored this information because it is clearly nothing more than a rendering of facts. No subjective evaluation is made of the school's quality or prestige vis-a-vis other institutions (although such evaluations would not necessarily violate Wikipedia NPOV rules). I'd also note that User 216.201.96.68 added to the article on Duke University that that institution is "highly overrated" (since reverted), a statement that is a NPOV problem. I'm not quite sure what this user's agenda is, but the U.S. News rankings should clearly remain in the Washington University article, as in other university articles. Ropcat 03:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there any way we can substantiate these? Perhaps a link to the US News listing? - jredmond 04:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Here's why including the ranking in this article is pointless: nobody cares whether Wash U is ranked #43 or #29. It's not relevant. Besides, including this information actually has a negative effect on the reputation of the school. It implies that the school is low-ranked, so it's ranking must be shown. Do you see the ranking in the Harvard or Stanford article? No, because everyone already knows that those are top universities. By including the ranking here, it's like saying, yes this school is not a top university, so let us show how great it is by including some irrelevant ranking. This article would be more useful without that distraction.

Please sign your posts on the Talk Page. Actually, you are wrong: the U.S. News ranking is indeed given in the wikipedia Harvard article. Just doing a random search, I found that the Columbia and Princeton articles both incorporate some sort of ranking details as well, either U.S. News or Atlantic Monthly. Perhaps the ranking (as you note) says, "Yes, this school is not a top university" -- but not by virtue of the ranking being in the article; rather, by virtue of the ranking not being that high. I think you've mistaken my reversion for booster-ism; I just find it useful information, as it equally would be in an article about Cal-Berkeley or Swarthmore or Emory. In fact, the U.S. News rankings are a common feature of many American university articles on wikipedia. On another note, I'm not sure I understand the point of many of your edits. For instance, on the Stanford page, is it not an interesting historical sidebar that a full half of Stanford's original faculty were drawn from Cornell? Why would one delete that and label it "an attempt to elevate Cornell's prestige; we all know it's the worst of the Ivy League"? And what about the article comment on Duke being "highly overrated"? Generally, I'd guess that people visit university articles for information on the schools, not for users' editorials on their quality. Ropcat 07:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for putting those rankings back in, they are valuable information. As a St. Louis resident who is considering options for graduate school, I turned to (among many other sources) Wikipedia for some encyclopedic information, and the rankings were informative, helpful, objective, and accurate. I disagree strongly that "nobody cares whether Wash U is ranked #43 or #29." I care, because it's an expensive place to get an education, and I want to know what collegiate journalism has had to say about it. I'd be even more interested in rankings assigned to the school and its various programs by other sources. (Updated with legitimate sig) --Bjsiders 15:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Lots of people care about rankings, including current and prospective students, parents who want their kids to go to top-flight schools, recruiters, and perhaps most importantly alumni like myself. Might as well ignore NHTSA scores when you're looking to buy a minivan.Shapu 21:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forget the Rankings!!

You cannot base your decision for college solely on the "U.S. News" rankings. Knowing that professors are knowledgeable, accessible and generally interested in their students welfare, is what students are really looking for in a college. Washington University in St. Louis does pretty well in this area. Here's a quote from a current student...

“Some teachers here are fantastic! Depends on the class really—also they’re really great about giving teachers and not TAs. The only class you'll have that will be taught by a TA will be your English composition freshman year class. Especially awesome teachers (that everyone knows and loves)—Richard Smith (he teaches intro to evolution and is apparently phenomenal), I've also loved Prof. Bernard (physics teacher who moves discussions at a nice, steady pace), Prof. Friedman (history/women's studies is probably the best woman teacher here), Prof. Huck (teaches art school-mostly printmaking and has a knack for the arts), Prof. Sabraw (teaches art school-mostly drawing and will work tirelessly with each individual student), and John Stewart (the chorus director who is also a phenomenal human being).”

from College Prowler's guide book, Washington University in St. Louis - Off the Record

[edit] Student Association of Missouri in "See Also"

I just removed the recently added "see also" section, which was created by BCV as a place for a link to the Student Association of Missouri. The new article on this organization is interesting, but the Washington University article probably shouldn't have links to every organization that a few WU students have ever belonged to. The Student Association of Missouri existed for only four years, and seems to have had no WU students among its leadership. Unless the organization was of particular significance to WU history, or unless the link works into the text itself in a logical way, it seems best to avoid cluttering the article with this or other links with only peripheral significance to WU. But I'm open to discussion on this, of course. Ropcat 09:28, 03 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Admissions Practices

There were clear neutrality problems with the edits done by Wtnoob. I am copying the section written up over here so that if I am wrong in removing it, it can be put back up. While there are rumors that WashU does use aggressive admissions (and the school probably does to some extent), there's no evidence to claim that they turn down "overqualified" applicants to improve their yield. Show some real concrete evidence, and then put the section back, not a Harvard research report.


"In recent years WashU has skyrocketed in the U.S. News rankings due to the admission's office practice of strategic admissions. This has been done in two ways: The first is through an aggresive marketing process that sends a flood of information to prospective college students who score even moderately well on the PSAT. The effect of such heavy recruitment has been seen in the significant drop in its acceptance rate in recent years. The second is through yield protection, whereby the school waitlists thousands of those who are overqualified (and have not shown active interest in the school) because they feel as though they will likely turn it down in favor of more prestigious schools such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford (see the Harvard University study entitled A Revealed Preference Ranking of U.S. Colleges and Universities for more information regarding this issue). Students on various college admissions forums often debate whether such deliberate manipulation is a legitimate practice or not, and thus the credibility of U.S. News & World Report college ranking itself."

Sareen eng 07:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The "Tufts syndrome" which Washu now seems party to is spoken of frequently in ad com circles. Google Washu xoxohth.com spam and you will get a row of pages. I think the paragraphy should be reworked, but needs to be on some level maintained. ~crimsonmaroon

[edit] Admissions Practices

I have attempted to make it more neutral, please comment -Wtnoob

I still think this section does not belong in an encyclopedic article. Even the University of Pennsylvania and Emory University have had rumors circulating around them claiming that they manipulated admissions to boost their USNews rankings, but you don't see sections on their articles concerning this. Furthermore, yield is NOT a factor for the USNews rankings as of last year (Methodology). 2003 was the last year that yield was used as a factor, and WashU's rank went from T-9th to T-11th, hardly a noticeable difference. And acceptance rate is only 1.5 percent of the score, which I think is quite low. So if the WashU admissions people used aggressive techniques by mass-mailing (which they do) and waitlisting overqualified applicants (rumors), then they're putting a lot of money into a 1.5% chunk of the USNews pie, and I don't understand how that could possibly cause their ranking to "skyrocket" Sareen eng 17:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Discussion of these tactics employed by various universities to boost US news ratings is probably better suitd to the US news article. In any case, the rhetorical style of the text in question is certainly unencyclopedic.--Bjsiders 16:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chancellor's Salary

There seems to be an ongoing edit war over the mention of the chancellor's salary in the lead section. This information seems to be properly sourced. Those editors who think it ought to be removed should discuss their reasons for excluding it (or thinking that it is incorrect) here, rather than simply reverting it. Removing proeprly sourced content agaisnt consensus can be considered to be disruption. Please discuss and try to achieve consensus, rather than simply reverting. DES (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I've tried, as has at least one other user. We have called for discussion in this very talk page, in the summaries for our reverts, and on the talk page of the user who keeps changing it. When we began to do that, the user quit making the changes under his/her login and instead makes them anonymously. We have offered ideas for how to come to a consensus on what should be there, but the user has declined to participate in any kind of community discussion and continues to simply remove the information. Bjsiders 21:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I suspected as much. This was a public warnign from a previously uninvoilved admin that future undiscussed reverts can be treated as disruption, and may result in a block as per the blockign policy. I came here as a result on the mantion on the admin noticeboard. DES (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah that was me that posted that, I forgot to sign it, sorry. Thanks for the prompt response. I see he got your edit, too. :) Determined little bugger. At this point I don't think he objects to the information so much as enjoys batting the community around like a cat playing with a mouse. By the way, is there a fast way to do a revert for stuff like this, or vandalism? I find myself opening the last good version in one tab, cutting and pasting, and having to juggle multiple windows, etc. Very laborious. What's the fastest way to do a simple and minor revert? Bjsiders 22:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
See WP:REVERT. Basically, go to the huistory tab, open the last good version, edit, and save with no changes. Use a proper edit summery starign with "Rv", and beware of the three-revert-rule. Admins have a faster one-click method, called "rollback". On User Scripts you can find a script that emulates this, called "god-mode lite" IIRC. the 3RR still applies. DES (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks for the tip and thanks for your quick response to the problem here. Bjsiders 22:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The same user has removed the same data once more, and it's been reverted. I don't know what Wikipedia policy is on this, but I hope it's nearly time for it to kick in and take action. Bjsiders 13:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added a comment next to the paragraph to see if that catches the attention of the anonymous editor (it may or may not work, but it's been effective for me in other situations). Also, since I'm in St. Louis myself, if there's any other way that I can help, please let me know.  :) Elonka 19:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I know we're supposed to assume the best, but this person clearly understands what he's doing and continues to do it as a form of harassment. He used to have a login, and when people started posting on his talk page, he quit using it and has gone anonymous. He's been banned once for breaking the three-revert rule, so now he just changes it once every week or so. Seems pretty clear that he's clowning around. Bjsiders 22:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, I've seen a lot of vandals on Wikipedia, and this guy (or girl) doesn't seem to fit the pattern. They're not leaving profanity, they're not posting dumb comments, they're just removing that one section over and over. Maybe it's somebody concerned about privacy issues, or maybe it's even the Chancellor's secretary, trying to follow somebody's directive to remove the information, but being completely oblivious to how Wikipedia works? They may think that their changes aren't getting "saved", which is why they keep re-doing it. And I could easily see a newbie completely ignoring the "You have new messages" header if they weren't familiar with things (it might just look like an ad to them). If their goal was truly to vandalize, I don't think they'd be so focused on that one paragraph. Elonka 23:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It is kind of clunky as written. Here's what it says now: At over $600,000 a year, he is among the highest paid university heads in the United States. [1] (In 1998-99 Washington university's Chancellor had the ninth-highest salary among private school presidents, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education. [Issue dated November 24, 2000]) Since the issue date is contained in the linked Chronicle page, we don't necessarily need the bracketed issue date, and some of the rest is kind of awkwardly worded. Couldn't we collapse the information into a slightly more succinct version, such as: The Chancellor's annual compensation of over $600,000 makes him one of the best-paid university heads in the United States[1]; the Chronicle of Higher Education listed his 1998-99 salary as ninth-highest among private school presidents. (And no, I'm not the vandal; I've never touched this passage!) Ropcat 03:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, some rewording might be appropriate. Also, is it possible that it's just not true anymore? The 1998-1999 figure looks credible, and the $600,000 number is plausible, but keep in mind that it's from a student newspaper, so the fact-checking is not certain. And even if it's correct, it's still only valid as of 2002. My own stab at a rewrite would be:
The position of Chancellor at Washington University has been noted as one of the highest-paid such positions in the United States. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, it was in the top 10 list of highest paid private school presidents in 1998-1999[2], and according to the Student Life newspaper, the 2002 annual salary was over $600,000.[3] - Elonka 04:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that wording sounds fine, although I'm not sure why this fact deserves to be in the top-most section of the article, which usually is reserved for broad-brush overviews, explanations of a topic's significance, and so on. And why such a large portion of that top-most section is taken up with this particular facet of the institution. Could it go somewhere else in the article? Ropcat 05:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've also thought it is a bit clunky where it is in the article. Some of us have talked about moving it further down in the body of the text. It should go wherever we talk about the chancellor. I also have considered moving the info to Mark S. Wrighton. TMS63112 07:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ropcat that this fact doesn't need to be in the topmost section. The salary of the Chancellor is not one of the most important things about the University. I also agree that the information would be appropriate at Wrighton's article, but I think it is worth keeping on the main University page, since the salary is often discussed as "the Chancellor's salary" and not just Wrighton's salary. Though I did find a reference that his predecessor, William H. Danforth, "only" made $147,475.[4] It may mean, however, that the $600,000 salary was a one-time thing, and not a persistent pattern. For example, the salary may fluctuate depending upon university donations that Wrighton is credited with soliciting (in other words, he may get a percentage). As a further datapoint, there have been some recent disputes about money at the University. There was a student hunger strike in 2005[5] where many students were protesting about how low-paid some of the University contractors were, and I've seen reference to where the Chancellor's salary has been discussed in recent Faculty Council meetings.[6] All of which are circumstantial, but do lend to the inference that the subject of his salary has probably been controversial lately. Elonka 17:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
As a current Washington University student, I can attest that there's really no dialogue on campus currently about the Chancellor's salary. Someone on the campus (you can tell by the anon's IP address, it's in the 128.252.x.x range, which is WUSTL) has made it his/her mission to disrupt Wikipedia. That's all this is. No one is talking about living wage or University contractors anymore. -- Barfooz 21:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chancellor's Salary, Redux

Quote: I agree with Ropcat that this fact doesn't need to be in the topmost section. The salary of the Chancellor is not one of the most important things about the University. -- Elonka 17:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Elonka sums it up. This information is not about the University. This information is about Mark Wrighton. Ergo it should be in the Mark Wrighton article, and this "anonymous user" should go over to Wrighton's article and edit over there. It's a waste of space on the WUSTL article. -- Barfooz 20:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
There, done. -- Barfooz 20:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Housing Information, etc

I have noticed on other university pages that there is a fairly sizable amount of information about housing, greek life, and other student groups. The info on this page about housing is nonexistant, and the info regarding student organizations has been squished into one short paragraph. I can add the majority of the information, as I am a current student and know specific info about housing and groups, and I can ask around for other info. However, I'm trying to come up with the best solution for formatting the article. I was looking at the Harvard, Saint Louis University, and Yale pages, and think their various layouts are pretty good, but in order to replicate them here would require major revamping. Anyone else have any suggestions? I don't want to just completely rearrange this article without outside input. Thanks!--Ecurran 01:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Problems

This article has problems with POV. For example, consider this sentence: "The university's Hilltop campus is known for its gorgeous collegiate Gothic architecture." Thanks. Courier new 05:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why that's POV. If I say, "New York is known for its distinctive skyline and tall buildings," is that POV? [Yes, it is.] I mean, if the campus IS noted for its architecture, how is it POV to say so? Do we need to go dig up a quote or citation to prove that it was Gothic architecture and that it's known for it? [Indeed] Bjsiders 22:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Such vacuous statements are clear violations of Wikipedia's policy against NPOV. Noted by whom exactly? Plus, "gorgeous" is not an inherent quality but an opinion (

The quality of this article or section may be compromised by "peacock terms".
You can help Wikipedia by removing peacock terms.

). We are all surely familiar with the timeworn adage "one man's trash is another man's treasure." Courier new 02:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: To Courier New

"The university's Hilltop campus is known for its 'breath-taking' collegiate Gothic architecture."


Is that better?


Or would "awe-inspiring" sound better? "Magnificent" maybe?


...We COULD have a look at the picture of the place and then, try to agree on a word that accurately describes the architecture...

-- JJ

[edit] Campus size

The article states that Washington University's campus is only 169 acres, however that is only the size of the Hilltop campus and this does not include the 59 acre medical campus, the east and west campuses and the tyson research center. The actual size of the campus is 2267 acres and I respectfully request for the editors to change this.Astuishin 01:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to change it yourself, don't wait around for somebody else to do it! If you have a source for your figure, include that too. Sounds like a good edit to me, I say go for it. Bjsiders 15:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of seal

The University seal was removed from this page. Per the University's official logo guidelines, available at http://logo.wustl.edu, the seal is limited to items for Commencement and those events sponsored by the Board of Trustees, the Chancellor, or the deans and requires special permission from the University for use.

Please be advised that the University has in the past pursued legal action when images and symbols are used without permission for which permission is specifically required. This unsigned comment was added by CLyerla (talk • contribs) .

First, I must kindly ask the user who posted this topic to please sign their username to their post in future. Secondly, the use of Washington University’s seal in a Wikipedia article is perfectly fair and legal. Just as wikipedia is allowed to use the logo’s of McDonalds , Apple, and other US corporations that have also copyrighted their logo’s, a wikipedia article is still allowed to use College and University seals under the US copyright law’s fair use policy. Wikipedia does not need permission to use Washington University’s seal so long as it meets the fair use qualifications. Every other university's seal including Harvard's, Northwestern's, and Yale's is used in Wikipedia articles that reference them, even though they have similar policies about university seal use. This because wikipedia is a non-profit foundation, allowed to use copyrighted logo’s under the fair use policy. --Astuishin 20:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I will be reinstating Washington University's Seal to meet the format consistent with other US College and university articles.--Astuishin 20:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be advised that legal counsel has been notified. The University makes available the official University logo for these purposes. Use of the University seal is strictly prohibited and protected. CLyerla 21:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The use of the Washington University seal even if it is copyrighted is allowed on Wikipedia through the fair use policy. Notify legal consul if you must but the Fair use policy has already been affirmed in court see: Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation. I have also examined user CLyerla's discussion page and found that the user has flouted Wikipedia rules and regulations in the past. Taking this into account I will continue to reinstate the university seal until the user CLyerla presents a concrete reason why I should not. Placing the university seal on the wikipedia article that it concerns is consistent with wikipedia format, and encouraged by the wikipedia community. The same policy which governs the use of Washington University logo also governs the Washington University seal. And I question CLyerla to be a spokesperson for the university and decide that it is acceptable to use the logo. Although I was unable to access the link that CLyerla provided in an attempt to present their case my understanding is that the policy applies to the use of the seal by members of the university community and not an outside non for profit foundation. Once again there has been no violation of the fair use policy concerning the Washington University seal brought to my attention and 87

Atherefore I continue reverting to the original article until one such violation is identified.--Astuishin 22:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


user CLyerla please post Washington University seal policy in full on the talk page so users can examine it and compare it to other university policies as I said before I was unable to access the link, you still not be removing the seal PLEASE stop.--Astuishin 21:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with Astuishin that Fair Use doctrine permits use of the seal in such a not-for-profit context. (As a sidenote, Wikipedia's image tag for "logos," which asserts the right to use such images in this context, surely wasn't invented out of thin air; there's presumably some legal research/knowledge behind that tag's invention.) I think we might do well soliciting the advice of an administrator who has specific experience in copyright/Fair-Use issues, if this dispute continues. Surely this sort of issue must pop up on Wikipedia all the time. Ropcat 23:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The official seal of the University is a protected trademark and may not be used without the written permission of the University. The University has not granted Wikipedia the right to use its marks. The official seal is especially limited in use. It is reserved to items for Commencement and those events sponsored by the Board of Trustees, the Chancellor, or the deans. Because special permission must be obtained for the use of the seal, the University does not allow for it to be available electronically. Access to the Logo Web site is granted with requests for access, and has been given to Danny Wool at Wikipedia at his request. As the University logo is available to identify the University on all public sites, the University reserves the right to strictly enforce the limited use policy of a registered trademark (the University Seal). CLyerla 13:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is the seal exempt from the normal fair use doctrine? Bjsiders 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The seal does not fall within fair use doctrine because there is an alternative - the logo - which is the public symbol of the University. The seal is not a public symbol of the University and is used with special permission for internal purposes only. CLyerla 18:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that "Fair Use" does not extend to copyrighted works that are non-publice? Bjsiders 19:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, if there were no alternative, would the seal then be covered by Fair Use? Bjsiders 19:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


I thank CLyerla for posting the university's on official seal use policy, however the explanation CLyerla offered, concerning the illegality of Wikipedia’s use of the seal is still inadequate; just because the university decides when to use it’s seal, and has multiple copyrighted logos, doesn't mean that they can choose which logo’s can be used under the fair use policy. For instance Intel has had three different logo's in its history, all of which they still have copyrighted, however only one is the official logo's of the company, and its others are simply past alternatives, despite this Wikipedia as a non-profit foundation is allowed to use the all of the logo's under the fair use policy, despite the company’s opinion. The fair use policy covers all copyrighted logo's and seals not just the used by the corporation. --Astuishin 21:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

On another note Washington University is not unique its policy on the use of its seal Yale also as a similar policy:

Use of the name, the coat of arms and other insignia of the university, Yale College, the Graduate School, and the professional schools may be licensed by the Secretary of the University under such term as he or she shall determine. The Yale seal is to be used only to authenticate documents bearing the signature of Officers of Yale University and for such other official purposes of the University as the Yale Corporation prescribes.(The Yale Corporation Miscellaneous Regulations, June 16, 2000)[ http://www.yaleinsider.org/pdf/Yale_Corp_Misc_Regs.pdf]

Yale expressly prohibits the use of the seal for reasons other than the “Yale corporation prescribes” yet as a non-profit foundation Wikipedia is allowed to use the Yale seal under US copyright law’s fair use policy. Wikipedia did not have to ask the Yale secretary to prescribe to the use of their seal in Yale’s Wikipedia entry, and the rules that apply to Yale apply to Washington University.--Astuishin 21:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

To comply with fair use, wouldn't the large files (599x600 and 1615x1617) have to be deleted, and a low-resolution file used? I'm not sure that the fuzzy scan complies enough with "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". -- Jeandré, 2006-07-23t10:52z

Hi everyone, to answer the concerns expressed by Jeandré, and to better comply with the fair use policy I have created a lower resolution version of the Washington University seal I'm wondering if there are any objections to me putting in up. Of course other than ones expressed by CLyerla.--Astuishin 00:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


The issue here seems to be one of burden of proof. Wash U has made it explicitly clear that it does not want its seal used and has provided an alternative--the logo that it uses on its web pages. It would seem reasonable to respect its wishes in this matter. But several people do not wish to do so and have chanllenged the University to provide reasons for its stance (which it has done). Those same people have judged those reasons as insufficient. Reading the wikipedia page on fair use Wikipedia:Logos it seems to me that burden of proof is on those trying to defy the wishes of the University:

In the case of any dispute, the burden of proof is on the person who wishes to include the logo. When a logo is removed because of an objection on the part of the trademark owner, no attempt should be made to re-insert the logo (except perhaps under very extraordinary circumstances, and only after extensive discussion). The other provisions of this policy are intended to cover ordinary, common-sense usage. When the circumstances are unusual and the use of the logo is in dispute, this policy should not be cited as weighing on the side of inclusion.

This seems to me about as clear as statement as there can be regarding wikipedia policy. CLyerla should revert the image back to the logo until Astuishin, Bjsiders or others have made a compelling case for why the seal should be used. --Jdclevenger 16:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


I thank Jdclevenger for posting his perspective on the placement of the Washington University seal, however I disagree with some of his points. First Jdclevenger makes the statement that Wash U has made it explicitly clear that it does not want its seal used, I however see no proof of this, CLyerla has not identified him or herself as a representative for the university, and looking at the users past history of completely ignore Wikipedia policies as well as the will of the majority on the this talk page I have no reason to belief otherwise. Also I was unable to find the Washington University’s official policy for its seal or logo use and have decided to treat the seal like any other corporation or university seal. Jdclevenger also requested that I examine wikipeida’s policy on logo's so I obliged and found the policy outlines exactly the argument I have been attempting to make.

It is not necessary to seek formal permission from a corporation in advance of using their logo, so long as the usage is fair use, does not create any impression that the logo is associated with or endorses Wikipedia or the article it appears in, and does not create any reasonable grounds for complaint by the trademark owner. The purpose of the specific guidelines above is to meet these conditions.

The policy, as Jdclevenger suggest, forces those who wish to keep the corporations seal on their entry page to prove that the seal or logo should be there. However this policy only seems to come into effect if the objector is to the logo or seal is the copyright of trademark holder. The policy also provides guidelines to how the trademark or copyright holder may object to the placement of their logo:

In the event that a corporation objects to the use made of a logo, the suggested action is for the corporation's representative to remove the logo themselves, and identify themselves and their reasons for removing it on the associated talk page.

No user on this talk page has followed this protocol so the policy Jdclevenger quoted does not seem to come into effect.

Secondly Jdclevenger states that I and Bjsiders have not presented a compelling case for why the seal should be removed. Obviously I disagree with this complete dismissal our argument. And would also like to note that compelling is a subjective term, so what I, Bjsiders, and Ropcat find compelling is different from what user Jdclevenger finds compelling. To me compelling is citing US Supreme court cases, providing examples of fair used on other Wikipedia pages, and even went going so far as to search the Yale universities policy to compare it to the policy CLyerla has outlined. I feel that I have made a well reasoned as well as compelling argument for keeping the Washington University seal on this page, however I will attempt to condense again, for all the users that are unclear.

First Wikipedia is allowed to use Washington University's seal under the fair use policy just as it is allowed to use the copyrighted and trademarked logo's of corporations such as Intel and McDonalds and universities like Yale and Northwestern
Second US copyright law does not make exception for a corporation wishing to designate which logo can be used under the fair use policy when it has multiple ones
Third Not only is Washington University’s seal more aesthetically pleasing than the logo, the placement of the seal is far more consistent the wikipedia format for colleges and universities. I randomly searched wikpedia entries on other colleges and universities and found every one of them had the universities official seal. See Harvard, Yale, Georgetown, Boston College

--Astuishin 10:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not campaigning for use of the seal over the logo or vice versa. I'm simply unclear as to why the Wash U seal is immune to fair use. The reasons offered by CL are fairly flimsy and unsatisfying. Bjsiders 20:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As an article contributer who has not been involved in the "revert war" over the seal, I do want to reiterate that I find the argument by Astuishin to be compelling. The use seem clearly to follow Fair Use policies, and no official of the University has identified him/herself and made any sort of complaint. Ropcat 04:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a student at Wash U and I would like to add some information to this logo edit war. The User CLyerla IS in fact an employee of Washington University with the title "University Web Editor" in the Public Affairs department. Therefore it is her paid JOB to make these changes to the WU article. While you may not like what she is saying, she is the official online representative of the University and has the right to challenge the use of University trademarks. Now, with that being said, she did not do her proper duty by announcing her status, though in my opinion the phrase "Please be advised that legal counsel has been notified" is quite clear enough. I am just stating this to make it known that she is acting on behalf of the University both in this instance and when she edited the part about the Chancellor's salary (see above). Agilemania 16:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

-- Thanks to Astuishin for the clear re-articulation of his position. I do want to apologize for giving the impression in my earlier post that his argument was not compelling. I did not provide any argument that it was, and it certainly cannot be dismissed out of hand. The focus of my point was the short term--it was clear to me that Wash U. was disputing the use of its seal and that a revert war was going on. There are two basic questions--what is the process for resolving a dispute and what should happen in the interim. I am too much of a Wikipedia newbie to know the answer to the first, but Wikipedia's policy on the second seems clear--Wash U.'s wishes should be honored and the seal removed until the issue is resolved.

As to how I judge Astuishin's argument, it strikes me that there are also two questions. First does wikipedia have a legal right to use the Wash U. seal under fair use policy. Assuming it has, is such a use appropriate (and what does appropriate mean). Astuishin's First and Second points above address the former and the Third point address the latter. Perhaps the legal issue is resolved as some have stated. It is up to Wash U. to make the case that it is not and take this court to defend its position.

In my mind the legal point is not by itself compelling--the fact that one has the legal right to do something does not mean that it is appropriate to so. The justification of the Third point is, 'Not only is Washington University’s seal more aesthetically pleasing than the logo, the placement of the seal is far more consistent the wikipedia format for colleges and universities.' I'm sorry, but it not obvious and certainly not compelling to me that the aesthetic guidelines of a two-year web-site trump the desires of a 150 year old institution on the use of its intellectual property. One could of course take a 'WU-be-dammed' approach, but that does not appear to be the Wikki paradigm (nor am I suggesting is it the motive of those involved in these discussions). While wikipedia is a collaborative endeavor, it remains unclear what voice those affected by it have. Presumably that voice is non-zero, but then in practice what does that mean? It seems a bit disingenuous to me to argue that since Yale was forced to surrender the use of the seal, so must Wash U. in the name of consistency of look and feel on the university pages. Given the objections of some of those involved, perhaps the aesthetics of these pages should be re-examined.

-- Jdclevenger 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In the context of this discussion, it seems reasonable to assume that User:CLyerla is Colleen Lyerla who is identified on Washington University's website as the University Web Editor [7]. Therefore, it would appear that a representative of the university has made a request that the seal be removed and that she has followed the policy by removing it herself. I believe a part of the fair use rationale is that no suitable alternative is available. In this case, the university does not appear to object to the use of its logo but does object to the use of its seal. Unless someone can make a compelling case as to why the seal rather than the logo should be used in our article, I think the seal has to go. I do not believe asthetic arguments or internal consistency with other wiki articles are compelling when a representative of the copyright holder has raised an objection and made a suitable alternative available. TMS63112 20:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia is not intended to be a brochure for the institution. Just because User:CLyerla does not wish the Chancellor's salary be stated or the seal be published isn't legitimate reason to pull the information from the article. If the information is appropriate for the article and well cited a user, whether or not she may be a representative of the company, cannot arbitrarily withdraw the information. I feel that Wikipedia consistency is important, and furthermore theoretically a seal is more representative of a university's traditional mission, moreso than its logos which are purely aesthetic. Fair use then allows us to reinstate the seal as a part of the article. We need to remember that we don't need articles to be edited by the subjects we write about as long as we portray them accurately. - caz 16:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. CLyerla's behavior regarding the chancellor's salary was deplorable. As a Wash U student, I'm somewhat embarrassed that a representive of my school engaged in such childish behavior. Her behavior with the seal wasn't much better, with minimal participation in discussion and a lot of pseudothreats and spurious legal arguments. However, I think that respecting CLyerla's wishes in regard to the seal is appropriate, at least for the time being. 24.107.21.85 21:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Caz, I agree that Wikipedia should not be a "brochure" for the University and that no institution should have "veto power" over what goes in an article about the institution. However, there is a very significant difference between including information that the University would prefer not to publicize and using an image that the university owns the copyright to when they have asked us not to. Indeed, the fact that the article is not a brochure sponsored by the University fits with Cylera's reasoning for using the logo rather than the seal. The seal is used only for internal university publications approved by the school, which the wiki article is not. TMS63112 21:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This is starting to smell like a case of, "we're going to because we can." CLyerla may not have any legal backing for her argument, I really don't know. I'm unconvinced that Wikipedia would be doing anything illegal by using the seal. But is there a really compelling reason to use the seal over the logo beyond, "it looks nicer"? Bjsiders 00:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Other than consistency and looks there may not appear to be a reason, but I don't like the feeling that we're being bullied by baseless legal threats. Seals are used on Wikipedia, I beleive, because they express the university's motto and thus, what they are trying to foster. We're using a non-commercial image in a fair use situation and that we're being told you can't have it because we say so, take whatever we may give you, doesn't ring fair (or legal) to me. Also, TMS63112, with previous edits on the article from the University to take out or edit info they don't like it, this doesn't seem like an attempt to protect intellectual property, but a matter of systematically asserting official university PR over it's Wikipedia article, which would be biased and against Wikipedia standards. I haven't and won't revert Cylera's edits, but I respectfully feel that we shouldn't back down here, as it gives precedent for not only this university, but other universities to assert control over the points of their article in the future. caz
I'm no IP expert but I agree that CLyerla's legal reasoning appears at a glance to have no teeth. Still, what is the harm in playing nice with others? Bjsiders 12:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
From my experience with them, I can say that the Public Affairs office is very good at being very loud when it comes to use of the University's logos. They even have the style guide password protected (which means you and I can't see it, even if we want to know what's fair use). Here's the link to the FAQs regarding logo use FAQ. Right or wrong, though, it's probably best to let it go for the time being, or until someone from the University is willing to post an official statement (with official name and position and everything, otherwise it's just a droid at a desk) or do something beyond "notifying legal counsel." Might as well not waste the energy on a fight until there actually is a fight to be won.Shapu 20:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a new user to Wikipeida and a incoming Washington University student, I am surprised and rather ashamed that all of the contributors to the this page have spent so much time arguing over a simple seal instead of working together to improve the page.( Not to be mean but I compared the Washington U. article to other peer schools like Brown and Cornell and it is pretty lacking) The Washington U. page won't look any better with or without the seal on the page, however the argument presented by CLyera, seems flimsy at best and non existent at worse. It seems that she is trying to bully other users on the page to accept her position (seemingly the official position of the university), without really consulting with them. Both sides should come together and find some common ground instead of bricking about aesthetics or the applicability of the fair use policy.
On another note I hope CLypera does not see Wikipedia as simply another way to promote the university, because its not. Wikipedia is suppose to be a fair and objective source of information, not a brochure. By simply thumbing through Washington U. page history I have seen that Clyera has attempted to portray the university in a positive light, which is fine, so long as the article continues to be objective.Bancham 23:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schools and Divisions

The Univeristy now has 7 schools, down from 8. The formally separate School of Art and School of Arch were consolidated into the Sam Fox School of Design. The University has a large number of divisions--25+. These are primarily admisitrative distinctions. If you look at the webpage for schools and departments you can see 4 divisions under Sam Fox. But these are NOT the only divisions. For example Arts and Sciences has 2 divisions--Graduate and Undergraduate. Eng has 4 division, and so on. Complicating matters is the status of University College. From one perspective it is its own school with 2 divisions (in which case there are actually 9 schools). But UC is often considered as part of Art & Sciences. Since the University does not maintain a complete list of its divisions on its web site, my view is that they should not be refered to in Wikipedia. But this is certainly up for discussion. --Jdclevenger 05:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


The changes made by Jdclevenger seem to be perfectly reasonable and appropriate, and they are the simplest way to identify the academic divisions of the university. I originally I felt it necessary to state that the university consist 11 schools and divisions including the 7 schools and adding the 4 divisions that are under the Sam Fox school of design, however as Jdclevenger states this doesn't not include several graduate schools as well as the school of continuing studies, so until further research is completed detailing the academic division is of the university, it seems most reasonable to simply state the university consist of 7 schools.--Astuishin 09:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reorganized the Schools section of the main page. I am not 100% happy with the results, but I think they are at least more accuarate. As noted elsewhere, the University has 7 schools. Yet the Schools section listed 8, counting the College of Arts & Sciences and the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences as two distinct schools. They are not. They are both divisions, along with Unviersity College of the school known simply as Arts & Sciences. The Schools section now reflects this. Unfortunately the typograpgy defaults on sub-categories is not as strong as could be desired. Ideally, the three divisions under Arts & Scinces can be indented or something else to make it clearer their relationship to the main school. Any help here would be appreciated. Jdclevenger 18:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this organization can be clearly seen at the following page, [8]. Jdclevenger 18:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enrollment

Hi everyone, I saw in the info box that the enrollment for Washington U. is 7,547, however this is the enrollment includes part time students as well as full time, I noticed on other university Wiki pages like our peer schools Cornell and Brown only list the full time enrollment so I thought we should do the same. I changed the stats to the updated full time enrollment from the website. Thanks. Bancham 09:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rankings

Why is there such a huge section dedicated to rankings?

If you have to explain to people how highly your school is ranked, chances are it ain't that great of a school, know what I mean?

If you go to a great school, you just say the name, and that's it. If you go to a lowly ranked school, or are insecure about the school's reputation, then you basically have to append an explanation of how great your school is every time you mention it. It seems like the start of every sentence includes some talk of the US news and World report rankings. I am not saying that they should be removed, instead I think we should condense the rankings into one section. See UChicago, Cornell, and Brown pages for example.Bancham 15:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


If no one has any objections I'll condense the rankings into one section.Bancham 07:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do. The collegiate obsession with rankings is irritating, especially for schools like this, which can largely stand on their own merits regardless of ranking. Bjsiders 13:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay I've tried to consolidate the rankings into one section however it still needs some work, in the process of removing the rankings I left many of the sections about the schools bare. If anyone find some more information, like the number of volumes in the law library, or the endowment of the Medical, it will go a long way to improving them.Bancham 06:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Future Wash U article

Most of you who have read the Washington University talk page probably are a little familiar with me, but I realize that I'm still new to wikipedia and most of those who edit the Wash U page. So before I barge in and start making changes I want to get the consensus from the major contributors to this article, over its future.

This morning I read through the pages of Washington U. peer schools like UChicago Cornell and Brown University, and not to be mean but those articles are far better than the Wash U. page. In fact there is really no comparison between them. These articles have move visuals, more history, more facts, more content, and less needless links and citation of rankings, about there respective schools. In comparison the Wash U. page is a pitiful bare bones article, that resembles a brochure the schools admissions department may handout. The article needs work, a lot of work. And am willing to work really hard to see that this page improves, however I need to know if other users agree and will support positive change to this article, I think we all need to work together to make a better article. If you'll disagree with me then fine, maybe I should move elsewhere. I am very very sorry if I seem harsh, because there are plenty of users like Jdclevenger and Bjsiders who are making some good contributions, but I simply believe this article is far behind its peer schools and needs a vast amount of improvement Bancham 07:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the Wash U page can be improved and improved perhaps alot. I looked over the sites that Bancham mentioned and they are all pretty extensive. On the other hand, I'm not one to have a lot of Wiki-envy. Brown in particualar I thought had quite of bit of fluff--how many school songs do you need to provide the full lyrics for?

I would suggest that the way to get started on making improvements is to come to a general concensus on the basic structural elements of the site--the basic outline. Bancham created an Academic section, which seems like a good thing, relocated Rankings information into it and included the school information. I would quibble with the inclusion of the Rankings section under academics. Cornell, I think did it that way. But other schools did not. More importantly it justs seems to me that Rankings do not belong under the concept Academics. Perhaps under Overview. Perhaps elsewhere. But I do think this is just the kind of topic that people interested in the site should hash out. I will try to come back later with a proposal. BTW, things I liked on the other sites included Current Traditions (Bahaus etc would be good here) and expanded Faculty section under Academics. The idea of more photos is certinly good. But I thought the Gallery of rather vague photos on the UChicago site was excessive and pointless. My 2 cents Jdclevenger 16:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is an initial proposal for a revamped outline. Most of this is structural rearrangement of existing stuff. But there are also placeholders for new categories and some suggestions for enchanced content in existing areas:

  • History
  • Campus
    • Overview
    • History
    • Recent Years
  • Academics
    • Profile (new, overview of academic / demographic stats on students)
    • Schools
    • Faculty (new, overvew of current faculty)
    • Library (pull in info from other areas)
  • Student Life
    • Student Organizations
    • Residences
    • Student Media
    • Athletics
    • Music
    • Tradtions (new. list including short blurbs on WILD, bauhaus, Thirteen etc)
  • Rankings and Reputation
  • Notable Washington University People

(Keep separate list, but add a summary couple of parargraphs on people. For example I don't see anything on Steve Fossy (sp?) and WU role in cooridinating his around the world adventures.)

  • External Links
    • Offical Sites
    • Student Publications (new)
    • Notable Articles (new)
    • Other Resources
  • References

Jdclevenger 18:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment on my proposal above. One problem with these kinds of efforts is that people like to get the parts they are interested in towards the top of the page. But of course something (in fact most things) have to be below the top of the page. The order of History, Campus, Academics, Students, Rankings, People, and Links/References makes good conceptual sense to me and seems more or less in accord with other similar sites. Jdclevenger 19:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this section (pasted below in italics) of the Arthur Holly Compton article a while back, and I think much of the information could be reformatted into part of the Washington University History section -- with the major change being that the facts would be related with reference more to the university, rather than to Compton: Compton returned to Washington University in St. Louis, where he had served as Head of the Department of Physics from 1920 to 1923, when he was inaugurated as the university's ninth Chancellor in 1946. During Compton's time as Chancellor, the university formally desegregated its undergraduate divisions in 1952, named its first female full professor, and enrolled a record number of students as wartime veterans returned to the United States. His reputation and connections in national scientific circles allowed him to recruit many nationally renowned scientific researchers to the university. Despite Compton's accomplishments, he was criticized then, and subsequently by historians, for moving slowly toward full racial integration, making Washington University the last major institution of higher learning in St. Louis to open its doors to African Americans. Compton resigned as Chancellor in 1953, but remained on the faculty until his retirement in 1961. Ropcat 22:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It would work well, that is, unless WU official CLyerla comes along and removes all reference to WU's sluggish move toward racial integration, as per her attempts to fashion the article as a puff piece for the university. Ropcat 22:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

First I do envy the pages of other peer schools, but I also think we can use them as basese for improvement. Jdclevenger I agree mostly with your proposal, and I'm glad that at the enthusiasm that everyone has for improving the page. The list could be consolidated slightly. Rankings and might be better under academics and and combined with profile, Faculty might not have enough information to stand on its own right now but came be transformed into a page about research like the the Cornell page. Still think WU has a rich Athletic history and school have its own section, everything else looks fine. Oh and greetings to Ropcat I see nothing wrong with your article its seem perfectly fair and balanced.

(New suggested structure)

  • History
  • Campus
    • Overview
    • History
    • Recent Years
  • Academics
      • Rankings and Reputation Profile
    • Schools
    • Research (new, overview of current faculty)
    • Library (pull in info from other areas)
  • Student Life
    • Student Organizations
    • Residences
    • Student Media
    • Music
    • Traditions (new. list including short blurbs on WILD, bauhaus, Thirteen etc)
  • Athletics
  • Notable Washington University People

(Keep separate list, but add a summary couple of parargraphs on people. For example I don't see anything on Steve Fossy (sp?) and WU role in cooridinating his around the world adventures.)

  • External Links
    • Offical Sites
    • Student Publications (new)
    • Notable Articles (new)
    • Other Resources
  • References

Who is Steve Fossey? I googled him and nothing really came up Bancham 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, must of been thinking of Bob Fosse. The balloon guy is Steve Fossett. He graduated from Olin B-school and is on the Board of Trustees. Wash U. was the control center for a least some of his attemps to circumnavigate the world in a balloon.Jdclevenger 15:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The proposed restructuring the of the Washington University page seem reasonable, and I think comparing the page to other peer school like Cornell and UChicago is very reasonable, considering that these articles are in the same category. The page is a bit thin on the details, and I am knowledgeable the history as well as some research of the university, I will only contribute if my edits do not rekindle the response many on this page had in the university fiasco.
Also in a continuum of the criticism that Bancham expressed, I feel the page has far to many links, Wikipedia is not a link farm, and with the support of this page I will take out some of the unnecessary and excessive links.

Astuishin 04:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Links Astuishin, can you give us an idea of what links you find unnecessary and excessive? Looking at some of the other pages we have been talking about, I am struck by the relative large number of links. On the other hand, for example, I think the text in the Student Organizations section is excessively linkly. Jdclevenger 16:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding History' Astuishin, I certainly think that the History area can use a great deal of knowledgeable work. I have stuck in a couple of items. One of the things that needs to emerge by consensus is what counts as appropriate history. My first intiution is that things that help shape the identity of the university and/or bring it high visability. I think the debate stuff and the Metro stuff are part of the identity shaping (I think the Metro impact will be quite large actually). I think the Fossett stuff is an example of high visibility, although obviously that will fade over time (perhaps already has). Getting the History of a 150 year instution into five or six readable paragraphs without bogging down in every little change is a challenge. The second immediate need in a similar way is the Campus stuff. The exisiting parargraphs there are ok. But there is nothing about any of the later buildings/fund raising. Also, I think it would be worth splitting the Campus material into a Danforth and Medical Campus sections, but I have not found info on the Med School campus structure/history, despite the many building they have put up.

Jdclevenger 16:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Jdclevenger, I am sorry I did specify exactly what I felt excessive links were, or even defined the term links. Links In my opinion is a direct link to the website of the article’s subject. There is a difference between that and a Refence footnote. A footnote is perfectly fine, seeing how they’re used to site facts; Cornell University in particular makes use of them with over 100. Links on the other hand, and are not generally used on wikipedia pages as they make the page look sloppy, and should be used sparingly.
As for the history of the university, the two paragraphs there are thin and do no justice to the 150-year history of the university. They can be greatly expanded and if need be, I can create and entirely separate pages. I simply want to unsure that my edits will have the approval of this talk page.

Astuishin 20:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the Links versus Reference footnote. T[he page does use too many links in lieu of referenceing. I've been looking at the alternatives, to make sure I understand what the best option is. Probably the Cornell model is right. Jdclevenger 18:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Astuishin, I think you should go ahead and start adding to the history. Start slow and let's take a look. If it gets too big, creating a separate article could work. But even if we go that route, there would still be a need for a comprehensive history section on the main page. It should give the reader an overview of the major events that shapped the identity of the Unviersity--not necessarily everything accomplished at WU. Jdclevenger 18:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The University of Michigan article might be a good model, since it has a separate History of the University of Michigan article. WU certainly has a long enough history to make its own article, and the published resources are there, assuming that someone has time to dig into Morrow's and O'Connor's books (cited under "Further Reading"). Ropcat 23:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traditions

I'm taking out Diwali from the traditions section, because it does not seem to belong there. My reasoning is if we put Diwali here, then a lot of other shows would need to go as well (e.g. LNYF (Lunar New Year Festival), Carnaval, even Vagina Monologues). So the choices are either to put all of them in this section, create a new section, or don't mention any of them. Se2131 01:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure whether or not I agree with that move, but I'll not argue it too strongly. IMO, Diwali is a strong and very noteworthy tradition due to its quick sell-outs (thousands of tickets, spread across four or five shows, in just a few minutes) and its incredible popularity. The Chinese New Year Festival, Vagina Monologues, and other performances are popular, true, but I think Diwali is sort of the model for collegiate ethnic new year performances. My 2 cents. Shapu 14:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Department

I'm not really good at this wikipedia thing, but I wanted to request that someone change the Engineering Section to reflect the existence of the new Energy, Environmental, and Chemical Engineering Department [9] that replaced the Chemical Engineering Department and the Environmental Engineering Program. cowsandmilk 07:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metro Addition

I reverted the section on the Metro extension to the University that Barfooz deleted yesterday claiming that it was 'unimportant info'. The University has invested considerable effort (and resources) into Metro. While it is too early to fully gauge, I suspect that the increase in the ease of connections to downtown and to other areas will have a substantial impact on the character of the Unviersity in years come. Certainly once construction begins on 40, the underwriting of Metro passes for all students and staff will be seen as having been a really good thing to do. This of course is all speculative cystal ball and doesn't belong in the article itself (yet). Nonetheless, a brief mention of the it in the History of the University seems appropriate, especially given how thin the History section is. Jdclevenger 20:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Centers and Institutes

I made a few edits today, addding the heading "Centers and Institutes," as it would be beneficial to have a comprehensive listing of WUSTL academic organizations. Additionally, I added some information and liknks to a few centers/institutes, but the list is currently very small. Contributions would be appreciated, as well as any comments suggestions. This unsigned comment was added by Lmbstl (talk • contribs) .

Plenty of Universities have Centers and institutes, but why are the ones here so significant? why has so much space been devoted to them? I think we should dramatically revamp and perhaps even eliminate this section. But I want to hear other opinions.Astuishin 07:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Because of space concerns, Centers and Institutes have been moved to their own page: Centers_and_Institutes_of_Washington_University_in_St._Louis. Please feel free to expand the page-- these organizations can be very influentual and deserve mention.Lmbstl 07:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll research the influence of these organizations and add anything I can find.Astuishin 08:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changed "Campus" to "Campuses"

Information on the Danforth campus is pretty thorough, although a lot of information is missing about the Med Campus, Tyson Research Center, and West Campus. I will work to flesh it out and would appreciate any suggestions and contributions. This unsigned comment was added by Lmbstl (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Created "Libraries and Museums" section

Created "Libraries and Museums" heading along with a listing of the 14 WUSTL libraries. Any suggestions and/or refinements woiuld be appreciated. This unsigned comment was added by Lmbstl (talk • contribs) .

created Washington University Library System page --Lmbstl 05:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/s/Talk%7EWashington_University_in_St._Louis_56c2.html"